To me, the canes look similar to some Old English ones - but so too do Gillinder canes. But I am never sure that all the weights that one sees attributed to Gillinder are really Gillinder as opposed to Old English. The canes do not match any I have seen in OE1 or OE2 group paperweights. So I offer a definite 'maybe' on the Old English question!

Alan

Logged

Alan"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln.

The comments in this posting reflect the opinion of the author, Alan Thornton, and not that of the owners, administrators or moderators of this board. Comments are copyright Alan Thornton.http://www.pwts.co.uk

Thank you for the responses so far! I'd be thrilled if it was a Gillinder. It does seem similar in coloring to those I have seen recently while browsing on the web and I did get it here in the States. Are there any recent publications on Gillinder? I do have the Hollister and Hall reference books...

Do be careful when using both the Hollister and Hall books. I have great respect for the work that both authors put into them, and they are very useful guides...but...they both have a number of very significant errors.

Hollister, for instance, was not aware of and does not mention the main producers of Old English paperweights (such as Richardson, Arculus, and Walsh Walsh) and he perpetuates the myth of antique Whitefriars. Bob Hall relegates Richardson to a minor producer, and attributes many paperweights to Bacchus that were, IMHO, made by others. The concept of 'I have never seen any Bacchus that looks like this paperweight, so it must be a unique Bacchus' is, to me, a completely bizarre argument.

Alan

Alan

Logged

Alan"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln.

The comments in this posting reflect the opinion of the author, Alan Thornton, and not that of the owners, administrators or moderators of this board. Comments are copyright Alan Thornton.http://www.pwts.co.uk

I have great respect for the work that both authors put into them, and they are very useful guides

True experts acknowledge their errors in the light of further research and advances in knowledge. Alan is a more up-to-date "expert" in this field and isn't insulting anyone. The cost of publishing "limited sale" works such as glass and paperweight books means that errors in print rarely get corrected.

I don't understand why my comments are seen as an 'insult'. However dedicated and thorough authors might be, understanding improves, new information comes to light, thinking moves on, errors are identified and corrected by later researchers and authors. It would be a very sorry state of affairs if we just accepted whatever anyone wrote in the past without thinking any further about it.

Paul Hollister's book was published over 40 years ago, and his background work conducted before that: we know a lot more now than we did 50 years ago, so it is not a surprise that his book contains errors. He did the best he could at the time, and his book is still very useful. But that does not mean we should treat everything in the book as correct, or that it is some form of heresy to challenge any part. For example, he is wrong about the early life of William Gillinder: I have written articles for the PCA Bulletin and addressed the PCA Convention about William's true background, and for whom he worked in the UK, and when. But Paul did not have access to the genealogical records and Trades Union records that I have now examined, and nor could he contact living Gillinder descendants, as I have done. It is not an 'insult' to identify or to correct his factual errors.

Bob Hall's Old English Paperweight's book was published in 1998, based in part on studies that Bob carried out during the previous 20 years and in part on research by Anne Anderson starting somewhat earlier. Again, the information and thinking reflected in the book is now at least 20 years old, and some of it older. It is not an 'insult' to point out that some of the paperweights shown in the Bacchus chapter would now be attributed to other makers, or to point out that he shows the same image twice in the chapter, treating it as a different paperweight and giving slightly different dimensions. It is a mistake - and we all make them: but mistakes in reference books need to be identified, to prevent others who cannot or do not want to question the status quo from perpetuating myths. I know Bob very well, and before his illness we had talked about the errors that could and should be corrected if there were a second edition, and also whether all my work measuring densities of Old English weights, and what it showed, should be included. Sadly, a revised edition will now not happen.

Alan

Logged

Alan"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln.

The comments in this posting reflect the opinion of the author, Alan Thornton, and not that of the owners, administrators or moderators of this board. Comments are copyright Alan Thornton.http://www.pwts.co.uk

The phrasing and choice of words in the original post about Hollister and Hall could have been better, could have been less harsh. Additionally, there is no confirmed sourcing other than a personal opinion. The writing style is of the "I love you dearly, but..." school of criticism. Hollister and Hall are published professionals and deserve better than off-hand remarks they cannot defend, not to mention a reference to alleged private conversations with the writer of the post. There are better and more polite ways to say things than the bull in the china shop approach, or in this case, the bull in the glass paperweight shop.